Nikolas G. Spilson
Niko Spilson helps clients reach the best solutions for their businesses when dealing with complex product liability litigation. Niko is devoted to building genuine relationships grounded in mutual trust, respect and understanding. Having a relationship-focused approach to his practice not only lets him achieve better results, but lets him provide the right results for each client’s unique needs.
View the full bio for Nikolas G. Spilson at the Faegre Drinker website.
Articles by Nikolas G. Spilson:
Attorneys using generative AI can borrow a familiar litigation skill: Evaluate AI-generated output the way they would evaluate an opposing expert witness opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. An expert witness cannot simply “waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without adequate foundation. Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5 (7th Cir. 1999). Nor can an expert bridge the gap between data and conclusion with nothing more than ipse dixit — the expert’s own say-so. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997).
Rule 702 imposes that discipline directly. It requires expert testimony to be “based on sufficient facts or data,” be “the product of reliable principles and methods,” and reflect “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” So, when an opposing expert offers an opinion, a litigator’s instinct is not to accept it but to probe its basis and reliability.
Continue reading “Treat Your AI Like an Opposing Expert: Rule 702 Lessons for Evaluating AI Output”
Artificial intelligence is taking the world by storm, and the legal community is no exception. Tools that can reduce the time and cost of litigation have long been in high demand by both clients and counsel. But the tool must be fit for its purpose, and tools that generate evidence or other outputs that will be submitted to the court must pass judicial scrutiny. As video cameras became smaller and less expensive, there were fights over the admissibility of deposition videos that attorneys had recorded themselves to avoid videographer fees. Practitioners who focus on e-discovery can tell stories of hotly litigated technology-assisted review protocols. One of the newer fights concerns the admissibility of machine-generated “expert” opinions.
The U.S. Courts Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence (the “Committee”) proposes to address the issue by adding a new rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 707. The prospect of adding a new rule to regulate the admissibility of machine-generated evidence was first raised at the Committee’s November 2024 meeting. Since then, the Committee has proposed the following language for Rule 707:
Continue reading “ChatGPT As Your New Testifying Expert Under Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707? Maybe Not.”
After it was initially proposed more than two years ago, the European Union passed a new product liability directive (PLD) on Dec. 9, 2024, which prescribes a new legislative framework to expand and modify product liability laws created by the current PLD (originally enacted in 1985). As with other EU directives, the PLD sets legislative and policy goals that the EU’s 27 member states are obligated to implement into national law. For the PLD, they must do so within two years — by December 2026.
The new PLD was presented during the legislative phase as a modernization of pre-Internet Age laws from the 1980s. But beneath that exterior, the new PLD makes various substantive changes that are likely to increase litigation risk and costs for companies doing business in Europe. These changes will impact not only manufacturers of consumer products traditionally subject to product liability law, but also other businesses such as technology and software companies, which will be subjected to product liability law for the first time.
Continue reading “Ten Things to Know About the European Union’s New Product Liability Directive”
On October 10, the European Council adopted the European Union’s new Directive on Liability for Defective Products (PLD). The Council’s adoption of the new PLD represents a momentous step towards a complete restructuring of the EU’s product liability landscape as it will replace the current 40-year-old directive and soon become the EU’s new governing regime. The new PLD will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, member states will have two years to transpose the directive into national law. Alongside the new Representative Actions Directive implemented last year, the product liability legal landscape is in the process of a great transformation in Europe.
Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.
Last week, the European Union made a significant breakthrough towards its goal of overhauling the 40-year-old Product Liability Directive for the demands of the “digital” age and modern economy. To amend the directive, the elected European Parliament and the European Council (comprised of government representatives of the 28 member states) must agree on final language and separately pass the draft legislation through their respective bodies. After extensive legislative efforts and negotiations, the European Council (currently led by the Government of Spain) and the European Parliament issued press releases announcing that they have reached a political agreement regarding the proposed updates to the directive.
Continue reading “EU Reaches Legislative Deal on Proposed ‘Digital Age’ Updates to Product Liability Directive”
